Conservative Colloquium

An Intellectual Forum for All Things Conservative

Hitler Recognized and Praised Islamo-Fascism

Posted by Tony Listi on December 14, 2008

“Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers—already, you see, the world had fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing was Christianity!—then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies heroism and which opens the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so.”

Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 667

Advertisements

10 Responses to “Hitler Recognized and Praised Islamo-Fascism”

  1. In fact, Hitler had the Mufti of Jerusalem with him in Berlin for many years during the war to coordinate and advise the extermination of the Jewish people with Islam.

    http://paulmarcelrene.wordpress.com/2010/11/24/27-posts-categorized-auschwitz-blueprints-the-mufti-of-jerusalem/

  2. Chameleon said

    There is one flaw in your argument. Hitler’s perfect Aryan race was Christian, not Muslim. However, does that mean I am implying some sort of association between Christianity and Hitler, like you do between Hitler and Islam? Of course not, because there is no connection. He was a just another megalomaniac.

    • Tony Listi said

      Wrong. Hitler was no Christian and hated and persecuted Christianity: https://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2008/12/14/hitlers-war-on-christianity-quotes/

      The fact of the matter is that Hitler saw some things in Islam that he liked: violence, terror, warfare, imperialism, etc.

      • Chameleon said

        You misread what I said. I said “Hitler’s perfect Aryan race was Christian.” I did not say he was Christian. I also made it clear that nobody can with any credibility associate this maniac with any religion. Yes, he manipulated and even oppressed Christians and their leadership, but he also recognized the power of religion in uniting his people, just like Constantine and just like al-Qaeda. Religion is a political opportunity that many leaders and tyrants have exploited throughout history. Take a look at the following article, which I think presents this opportunistic perspective of Hitler very well: http://thenewamerican.com/history/european/271-hitler-and-christianity. Also, take a look at how Hitler made it appear how strongly Christian he was in his own words, which I have taken from the web site http://www.odinsvolk.ca/ChristianNazis.htm (notice how he also finds plenty in Christianity to inspire him to persecute, even though it is just as twisted as what he sees in Islam):

        “I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so” Adolf Hitler, 1941

        “The National (Nazi) Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirt of unity and co-operation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life.” Adolf Hitler’s proclaimation of “My New Order” to the German nation at Berlin, Feb. 1, 1933

        “The greatness of Christianity did not lie in attempted negotiations for compromise with any similar philosophical opinions in the ancient world, but in its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for its own doctrine.” Adolf Hitler, “Mein Kampf” Vol. 1 Chapter 12

        “This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief.” Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, pg. 152

        Adolf Hitler also said [according to the web site I just mentioned]:

        “My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.

        “In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross”

        “As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery.”

        “When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exploited”

        “Today Christians stand at the head of Germany I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit, We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press – in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past years.” Adolf Hitler

        [END OF QUOTED MATERIAL]

        Does any of this imply that Hitler was a Christian, even if there were hypothetically no evidence that he persecuted Christians (there is plenty of evidence, I agree)? No, in fact it proves unequivocally that he was NOT Christian, just as acts and incitement of terrorism prove unequivocally that those who do so and call themselves Muslim do NOT follow Islam. The goal of Hitler was to hijack Christianity for his own political purposes and the profit of his empire, since he knew that he could not win an absurd ideological victory simply by persecuting and killing off all of his perfect Aryans, who were nearly all Christian. His persecution was done for a selfish monomaniacal purpose, but always a purpose. This is the same thing that the Taliban have done in persecuting Muslims severely while at the same time claiming to purify the religion to maintain their leadership credibility, when their only real goal has been to exploit the country for mafia profits (primarily opium, over 90% of the world’s supply of which continues to come from Afghanistan in spite of the “war on terror”).

        It is also the same thing that Constantine did in hijacking the doctrine of Christianity to suit his own political purposes. Before Constantine, Christianity was severely persecuted in the Roman empire, but it was Constantine who first legalized Christianity in A.D. 313, which effectively gave him the power to direct it in many powerful ways, both overt and hidden, including how he significantly controlled which books became part of the New Testament at the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325. Constantine was even recognized as a great patron of the Church, a “Christian monarch,” and given sainthood. In reality, however, he never stopped persecuting those Christians who contradicted the official legalized version of Christianity (though it was done less openly), and there is strong evidence of how he suppressed dissenting views before and during the Council of Nicea as well. History proves that this “adopt, adapt and dominate” strategy (ala Microsoft) with respect to Christianity proved very successful in launching perhaps the most powerful empire the world has ever seen. Hitler was, if nothing else, a perverse student of history, so he was no doubt hoping to be able to repeat it. Fortunately, he failed.

      • Tony Listi said

        Sure, Hitler may have publicly tried to pose as a Christian, but it’s clear from his private, intimate thoughts recorded in Table Talk that he hated Christianity.

        The founder and earliest followers/leaders of a religion determine any religion’s true and pure character. Hitler did not embrace the Christianity of Jesus and the apostles. Al Qaeda, however, does embrace the violent, imperial, and supremacist doctrines and practices of Muhammad and his early followers according to the Qur’an and sunna.

        Constantine did not influence the decisions of the council; the bishops resisted his influence. You’re eating up pseudo-history and conspiracy theories. It seems pretty obvious you don’t know what you’re talking about because you claim the Church canonized Constantine as a saint when it never did any such thing.

      • Chameleon said

        To your first point, I don’t know what other Table Talk you might be referring to, but from the quote above it says “so gutless a thing was Christianity” (notice how Hitler used the word “was”, not “is”), and it finishes with “Christianity alone prevented them from doing so” (i.e., prevented the “cult” of “Mohammedanism”, which is hardly complimentary to Islam, from conquering the world). Hitler was clearly implying both in your quote and all of mine that he wanted to bring back the “true” Christianity that “glorifies heroism.” He wanted to return to the example of Jesus, who “was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.” He wanted to change Christianity from what it “was” (or almost “was”) to what it could be, all for his own twisted purposes. He had no intention of destroying Christianity or to persecute it for the sake of satisfying his hatred. Such actions would have done nothing to achieve his objective of unifying the Aryan race against his common “enemies”. But changing the core message of Christianity to accommodate hatred and violence most certainly would.

        To your second point, Al Qaeda does not represent Islam and has nothing to do with Islam. They are only trying to hijack a religion to unify a large group of people to their cause of hatred, just like Hitler, Constantine and countless others throughout history. The fact that they have failed miserably in an attempt to mobilize any substantial following beyond profit-seeking mafiosos to their cause proves this quite clearly. In fact, the primary reason Al Qaeda can recruit even this pathetic following is overwhelmingly because of foreign occupations of Muslim territories, NOT Islam. If you don’t believe me, read this respectable article from Foreign Policy magazine entitled “It’s the Occupation, Stupid” (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/10/18/it_s_the_occupation_stupid?page=0,3). Here’s their conclusion: “More than 95 percent of all suicide attacks are in response to foreign occupation, according to extensive research that we conducted at the University of Chicago’s Project on Security and Terrorism, where we examined every one of the over 2,200 suicide attacks across the world from 1980 to the present day.” Foreign Policy magazine published another article just last month on how Al Qaeda is failing miserably in its appeal to Muslims. The title speaks for itself: “Why Is It So Hard to Find a Suicide Bomber These Days?” (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/08/15/why_is_it_so_hard_to_find_a_suicide_bomber_these_days). Does this mean we don’t have to worry about terrorism? Of course not. But what it does say is that we have much more to fear from a “lone wolf” terrorist or fanatic sponsor like OBL or the Norwegian mass murderer than Muslims as a whole, let alone Islam. By going overboard and turning the entire U.S. into a security state, we are sponsoring our own self-fulfilling prophesy of terrorism in an endless cycle of more and more “security” to combat more and more “risk”. Let’s not forget how Hitler acquired unprecedented, unchecked dictatorial power all in the name of national security, which was his key in carrying out “Mein Kampf”. Once again, I emphasize for utmost clarity that Hitler was NOT a Christian in spite of your continued insistence that Al Qaeda represents Islam, which I strongly refute. You have provided no evidence from the doctrines of Islam or the practices of Prophet Muhammad (which I have not already debunked in your other posts) to back up your conclusion that Islam is “violent, imperial, and supremacist”. If anything, you are only helping terrorists (unwittingly) in their propaganda campaign to twist Islam to suit their message of hatred and violence.

        To your third point, the Eastern Church did make Constantine a saint, per Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_I). Forgive me for not making the distinction vs. the Catholic Church, but this was quite ancillary to my point anyway, which was that Constantine has always been highly revered in Christianity by almost all denominations, when in fact Christians should be denouncing him for changing their faith vs. what Jesus originally taught. I am not referring to pseudo-history here. I pulled out just a couple of many relevant books from my personal library as cases in point: 1) Lost Christianities: The Battle for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (published by Oxford Univ. Press), by Bart D. Ehrman, who chairs the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; and 2) When Jesus Became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity during the Last Days of Rome (published by Harcourt Inc.), by Richard E. Rubenstein, a professor at George Mason University who graduated from both Harvard and Oxford Universities. These are very well documented academic publications — hardly pseudo-history. The second book delves deeply into the politics of the competing versions of Christianity in the fourth century and how the one that is known today (Jesus=fully God + fully human) prevailed above all the others. The first book is a bit more of a step back into the surrounding histories and competing scriptures of the time, with less emphasis on the political power plays going on. That said, even the first book makes it clear how Constantine’s power made the “correct” version prevail: “In 312 Constantine had begun to attribute his military and political ascendancy to the God of the Christians and to identify himself, as a result, as a Christian. Once his base of power was secure, Constantine became quite active in Church affairs, dealing with various controversies in an attempt to keep the Church united” (p. 250). Even before Constantine, however, there was considerable power play going on between competing versions of Christianity going back to the second and third centuries too, and persecutions of dissenting Christians (even bishops, such as Demophilus in 380) continued until at least the end of the fourth century, when preaching dissenting views or possessing dissenting written doctrines was punishable by death (p. 223 of the second book)! Therefore, I concede that the transformation of Christianity was not all accomplished at the Council of Nicea as I somewhat oversimplified, but it was the key turning point by far. As for the apparent lack of dissenting bishops at the Council of Nicea, Constantine effectively made the winner clear in advance, since he controlled who was invited to the Council, he controlled where the Council was held (deep in a region that supported his preferred view, which was important given travel difficulties), and he presided personally over the Council discussions himself so that he could “moderate” the direction of the discussion, among other machinations noted elsewhere. There were even some very suspicious deaths involved of those who would have opposed his viewpoints. Finally, let’s not forget the unambiguous Machiavellian outcome on his empire, which validates his perverse genius: “As a result of the favors Constantine poured out upon the church, conversion to the Christian faith soon became ‘popular’. At the beginning of the fourth century, Christians may have comprised something like 5 to 7 percent of the population; but with the conversion of Constantine the church grew in leaps and bounds. By the end of the century it appears to have been the religion of choice of fully HALF the empire.” (p. 250 of first book). It was at this very time (A.D. 395) that the Roman empire “was divided for the last time” (per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_empire). Its subsequent overwhelming dominance after this point is indisputable to all who study history.

        So how could Christianity possibly have become so popular so fast, 300 years AFTER Jesus, in a center of power far removed from its original humble origins? Was it just a coincidence that many of the dominant religions in Rome at the time were ancient pagan religions with a “son of God” savior? Was it also a coincidence that many of the same pagan temples were simply converted wholesale into churches, even with all their pagan savior statues, sculptures and iconography intact? Also, have you ever asked yourself why in the Bible Jesus is referred to as “Son of Man” far more than “Son of God”, and how in the early Greek manuscript the word “Son” is apparently not used, but instead “eved” (same root as Arabic “abd”), which means servant (as in “servant of God”)? A jot of a difference, no doubt, but a very important difference indeed — just enough to make a man into God. Hitler, Al Qaeda and Constantine all teach us the same powerful lesson. We should all be fearfully aware of just how easy it is to twist doctrines of faith to conquer our minds. Never underestimate the power of the pen. It is truly more powerful than any sword could ever be.

      • Tony Listi said

        It’s clear that Hitler hated that Christendom stopped the advance of imperial Islam. He much preferred the “heroism” of violent, imperial Islam to “gutless” Christianity.

        “cult” of “Mohammedanism”
        While “cult” may have a negative connotation today, it was merely a descriptive term in Hitler’s time. Hitler was a philosophical romantic; he had no problem with cults; Nazism was a cult and he would admit it.

        I really don’t have to say anything more to support the point of this post: Hitler admired the violence, hatred of Jews, and imperialism of traditional Islam. You haven’t done anything to refute this point. Just admit: Hitler loved Islam because he thought it was violent and imperial. You can say he didn’t understand Islam just like you claim I don’t but just admit that facts of what he believed, whether he believed correctly or not.

      • Tony Listi said

        Do you agree that the actions and words of Muhammad and his early followers are the final authority in how one should interpret the Qur’an and determine the true, pure nature of Islam? This is really the most important question everyone has to answer about Islam and every religion. We can’t make progress in our discussion unless you answer this and answer in the affirmative.

        You are making an illogical argument. Yes, there were heretics at the time of Constantine, and, yes, they wrote heretical writings (not Scripture). Yes, Constantine sided with orthodoxy rather than heresy. These are the facts of history. But you cannot leap from these facts to the bold and false assertion that Constantine changed the Christian religion. He merely took sides in divisions/schisms that already existed. It is fortunate that he sided with the correct side rather than persecute it like past emperors.

        “As for the apparent lack of dissenting bishops at the Council of Nicea, Constantine effectively made the winner clear in advance, since he controlled who was invited to the Council, he controlled where the Council was held (deep in a region that supported his preferred view, which was important given travel difficulties), and he presided personally over the Council discussions himself so that he could “moderate” the direction of the discussion, among other machinations noted elsewhere. There were even some very suspicious deaths involved of those who would have opposed his viewpoints.”

        I would like to know what historical evidence you or your books have for these assertions.
        What evidence do you have that he invited only bishops favorable to his view?

        Nicaea was centrally located among the major sees/bishoprics of the Catholic Church at that time. It was a good location for that reason. If it was in a location that deeply supported his view, it was also in a region that deeply supported Pope Sylvester I’s view. The pope would have to ratify the decisions of the council.
        Moreover, what “view” are you referring to? Constantine couldn’t have cared less about theological views; he merely wanted something that would provide unity for the empire, whatever that was (he didn’t know).

        “[Constantine] had opened the session as honorary president, and he had assisted at the subsequent sessions, but the direction of the theological discussions was abandoned, as was fitting, to the ecclesiastical leaders of the council. The actual president seems to have been Hosius of Cordova, assisted by the pope’s legates, Victor and Vincentius.”
        http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm

        “So how could Christianity possibly have become so popular so fast, 300 years AFTER Jesus, in a center of power far removed from its original humble origins?”
        Only those who know Christianity deeply can know how it wins the hearts and minds of people, especially women and common people rather than the elite. Only one who knows the pagan religious history of the empire knows how pagan religion was in decline and people were searching for something true and meaningful. And yes, I will admit that political considerations helped later on, but early on the Empire was against Christianity and viciously persecuted it several times.
        Moreover, I think you underestimate how the Roman Empire made the Mediterranean Sea smaller. Ships and roads made travel relatively easy compared to times before the Empire. St. Paul was a Roman citizen and traveled extensively throughout the Empire to spread Christianity, as did many others including Barnabas, Timothy, Titus, and St. Peter himself. Paul and Peter, the most eminent apostles, were martyred in Rome, the key city of temporal power.

        “Was it just a coincidence that many of the dominant religions in Rome at the time were ancient pagan religions with a “son of God” savior?”
        Pagan religion was searching for the truth by pure imagination and sometimes its imagination got glimpses of the truth. But to say that their conceptions of “son of God” were anything like the Christian notion is completely false. So no, it wasn’t a coincidence; the common human imagination often thought about the God-man or man-God in some form or fashion. These facts don’t undermine the Christian religion at all; if anything, they support it.

        “Was it also a coincidence that many of the same pagan temples were simply converted wholesale into churches, even with all their pagan savior statues, sculptures and iconography intact?”
        Pagan savior statues? What the heck are you talking about? The pagans had no saviors.
        The Christian Church admired and preserved all that was good in paganism, including their art, even if it depicted imaginative fables. The fact of the matter is that pagans didn’t take their religion seriously, at least not in an exclusive sense. Thus why there was a Pantheon, a shrine to gods of all sorts from all over the world.

        ::sigh:: Yet another Muslim who thinks they know Christian Scriptures better than Christians. Jesus explicitly claimed to be God and the oldest manuscripts show this to be true. There were no corruptions despite the claims of Islam.

        Looking for the most explicit references:
        Luke 22:70 “And they all said, ‘Are You the Son of God, then?’ And He said to them, ‘Yes, I am.’”

        John 3:16-18 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”

        John 10:36 “Do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘ I am the Son of God’?”

        John 1:49-50 “Then Nathanael declared, ‘Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel.’ Jesus said, ‘You believe because I told you I saw you under the fig tree. You shall see greater things than that.’”

        John 20:28 (Jesus does not correct Thomas)

        Matthew 27:43 “He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’”

        John 19:7
        Luke 1:35
        Mark 1:1
        John 20:31

        These links provides biblical verses and historical evidence.
        http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=Son%20of%20God&version1=31&version2=49&searchtype=phrase&bookset=4
        http://users.binary.net/polycarp/divinity.html
        http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/jesusclaimshub.html

  3. Chameleon said

    Tony, I see that you have reached your intellectual limit in deleting my last post, which was clearly too factual for you to handle (don’t worry – I already saved it). What has become quite clear is that not only do you not know what you are talking about, you just want to close your ears and hope it goes away. Guess what? That is exactly what I am going to do — go away and leave you to recycle your biases over and over again.

    • Tony Listi said

      In case you missed the notification from WordPress, I approve all comments. I will approve them in my own good time. But don’t for a moment think that I delete any comments that are “too factual” for me “to handle.” That’s a falsehood that you seem to want to hold on to to further your animosity toward me, someone you’ve never even met and don’t know at all.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: